Assassinato

This was one of the few times that Alfred Hitchcock filmed one of his stories as a "whodunit" in which you are not sure until the end who committed the crime. "Murder!" is often slow-moving, but it has some good features, and is worth watching the whole way through. It was one of Hitchcock's earliest sound pictures, and he tried some new things here, some of which work quite well.

Herbert Marshall stars as Sir John, a famous actor who sits on a jury for a murder case. After the case is decided, Sir John starts having second thoughts over whether the verdict was really correct, and he decides to investigate on his own. His investigation itself moves rather slowly, but it has some entertaining moments. Everyone connected with the murder was part of a theater group, and Hitchcock gets some good mileage out of having the characters alternate between their real identities and their stage roles. There are some pretty good scenes, most especially the one of the jury's deliberations - it is quite amusing, and a not-too-subtle example of Hitchcock's lack of confidence in the infallibility of the legal system.

There is not very much of the suspense for which Hitchcock is famous, but instead there is some subtle humor and a lot of atmospheric detail. While not having the sustained excitement of Hitchcock's best films, "Murder!" is still worthwhile as a slightly different kind of film by the great director.

Early Hitchcocks are all worth seeing to observe how the Master's style evolved over the years. This story, based on a Clemence Dane book, is interesting, if only for the sub-texts flowing through it. The dialogue comes in fits and starts, which is common in the early sound films and some of the camera work is rudimentary.....but you can still spot the Hitchcock touch in the nuances of some of the scenes. Herbert Marshall is especially dashing as Sir John; he was a particularly attractive actor in his early years. Nora Baring is servicable as the accused but it is Esme Percy, as Fain, who is intriguing. As a "half-caste", originally written by Dane as gay, he is either overacting like hell or is fascinating in his interpretation....there is a fine line. Regardless, he holds your attention when he is on the screen. The film moves slowlllllllly, very slowlllllly.....but for Hitchcock and early talkie buffs, it is well worth it. Catch Una O'Conner in her younger years as the landlady. She's a treat.

Alfred Hitchcock's Murder! is not a great film, but I give it *** out of ****, so it must be good, and it is. The acting is good, the premise is intriguing, but the film being extremely slow-moving, makes the film boring at times, but it is still at times a quite mesmerizing film that is worth is just for the extraordinary ending. The plot deals with a woman( Norah Baring) being accused of murder, and a juror( a great Herbert Marshall) being almost sure that she is not the killer, and attempting to find this killer. I will not reveal any more of the plot to you, as I think that this film deserved to be seen, not just read. It is not one of Hitchcock's more popular films, and not one of his best. It is an early talkie, so be prepared for a poor print. But past that and it's slow-moving flaws, it's a well-acted film that deserves to be seen.

Whenever I review one of Alfred Hitchcock's lesser-revered pre-1940 British efforts, I always find myself falling back upon an old cliché. Each time, in no uncertain terms, I declare that that, within this film, regardless of its cinematic merits (or lack thereof), one can detect the makings of a genius. At least in the case of 'Murder! (1930),' I can say this with complete confidence, since, though the film is rather ponderous between the interesting beginning and the thrilling ending, the director's aptitude for technical inventiveness is undeniably present. The film, one of Hitchcock's first talkies after he revolutionised British cinema with 'Blackmail (1929)' was based upon the novel "Enter Sir John," written by Clemence Dane and Helen Simpson. Unlike the "wrong man" scenario that would become Hitchcock's trademark, 'Murder!' involves the "wrong woman," as a young stage actress is condemned to die following the murder of a fellow performer.

Just like a previous film of his, the silent melodrama 'Easy Virtue (1928),' this film dedicates many of its opening minutes towards a genuinely thrilling courtroom trial. After the damning evidence has been presented to the members of the jury, all but three of the jurors vote to have the young lady, Diana Baring (Norah Baring), hanged for her crime. Hitchcock's apparent disregard for the British legal system is evident for all to see, as the three solitary "not guilty" voters are practically bullied into altering their votes. The venerable stage actor Sir John Menier (Herbert Marshall), despite his fervent belief in the girl's innocence, is likewise bullied into changing his decision, pressured by the other jurors' impatient taunts; after mentioning an irrefutable fact of the case, the group would exclaim in unison, "any answer to that, Sir John?!" Once the trial has come to an end, Sir John decides to investigate the murder for himself, employing the services of a pair of husband-and-wife actors (Edward Chapman and Phyllis Konstam) to aid him.

The novel "Enter Sir John" had previously been adapted into a play, and style of the film does exhibit these theatrical roots. Each of the actors (most playing stage performers, no less), do provide performances that are more theatrical than realistic, and Herbert Marshall, in particular, struck me as an actor somewhat akin to our contemporary Kenneth Branagh {who'd be my obvious casting choice for Sir John if a remake were ever conceived}. There is an excellent little spin to the ending, with Hitchcock almost breaking the fourth wall, but not quite. The camera zooms out from the closing shot to reveal that it is taking place on a stage before a large audience, suggesting that the director knew quite well that the style and plot of the film resembled a dramatic performance. Even more interestingly, could Hitchcock be suggesting that we have been watching a play for the past 90 minutes? Rather than watching the events unfold as they happened, could we merely be a member of the audience watching Sir John's theatrical adaptation of the story? This tantalising possibility represents a level of abstract thought that is rather unique among films of its era.

From my comments you will immediately recognize I am not an expert on Alfred Hitchcook or film in general. My positive reactions to this this movie are based on the fact that I felt it held my interest and that it is technically better than most talkies made in the period of 1929 to 1931, even though I think that Herbert Marshall was hampered by a script that was fine for the level of the other actors but inferior for Marshall's talent. I feel that he was out of place in this movie because of the supporting actors. It was still a good movie and you could see hints of Hitchcock future genius in the direction of the plot. I think it took courage to include some of the longer scenes in this movie, especially for a movie made in 1930. That being said I think these longer scenes were mostly effective. I think this film is watch-worthy for any film student and anyone who is a fan of Hitchcock or early talkies. In my opinion if this film were made only 4 years later with the same cast it would have been a superior film because of the massive evolution in film making in the period between 1930 and 1934.